Wealth: When the needs of the many are more important that the desires of the few

     There is a peculiar mindset for many people about the distribution of wealth. There is a feeling that those that have it must deserve it — or have earned it. Those without it don’t deserve it, haven’t earned it, won’t work to get it. But, in reality, that is not how wealth works.

     Let’s use the name “capital” as a parallel to “wealth” to fit in better with the dominant economic system in the “West” — capitalism. When we work, we get paid according to the amount that our society has determined. If we have more than we spend, we can save it as “working capital” or “savings”.

     The following discussion primarily applies to the United States but there are aspects that apply to other countries and systems. Only you know how much and where.

     Within a capitalist (not officially feudal) system, people can be separated into three groups.

The poor (group 1). This group is always struggling to achieve the “standard of living” for where they are. Note that the precise income boundary will vary from location to location, country to country, area to area. In the US, those in this category must forego something(s) that many consider “normal, everyday” items — such as permanent housing (ie., they are homeless), clothes that fit, healthy food (junk food is cheaper), a car (public transit in the US, where available, is useable but not convenient, or easy, as it is in many other countries in the world), and so forth.

     For the poor, any savings needs to be set aside for emergencies (flat tire, car accident, faulty tooth, …). There are many working for minimum wage (in the US — even assuming a higher state minimum wage rather than the sub-livable federal wage) who have NO extra. Each week is a matter of what they must forego. This percentage of “surviving working poor” has increased each year since 2009 when the U.S. federal minimum wage was last raised (for most people) to $7.25/hour. Living expenses have gone up 53% since 2009 and this means that “rags to riches” story has become more and more of an urban legend. In the US, about 11% of the population are at the official poverty level but there are many more “working poor” doing without and living payday(s) to payday.

     So, the reality is that people who earn less than a certain amount (greater than official minimum wage) often have no savings above expected living needs. Is this what they deserve? They worked, they earned, they just don’t have any “extra”.

Middle income (group 2). This group can meet the “standard of living” for their area and have some extra. The extra, however, is often reserved for making retirement more enjoyable.

     Working the way up the wage ladder, we get to the vanishing segment called “middle income”. In this case, there are truly choices. Any “extra” income above needs is called “discretionary” income. People can CHOOSE how to spend it. They COULD save it as “working capital” but there is always the temptation to enjoy life at present rather than save for the future and the attractions of a consumeristic society makes it easy to find something to do with the “extra” income. There are also desires to help the members of the family — paying for schools, degrees, vacations, cosmetic work, … .This group may not work any harder (perhaps even less hard) than the poor but, because of the higher wages allocated for their job positions, they have extra capital.

     It is very difficult to move from group 1 to group 2 but much easier to move from group 2 to group 3 as long as they have good financial and investment skills and reduce their discretionary spending as much as possible. No second home, no boat or rv, no special catered vacations,

The rich (group 3). They have so much that they don’t even know how much basic living expenses cost. Considering oneself rich, or not, is subjective. People threw themselves out of windows during the Great Depression because they lost 80% of their wealth — putting them back into the rank of middle income. And, after having had all of the excesses of being rich, they were scared to death (literally) to have their income reduced so far and to lose their cook, maids, butler and so forth.

     In this group, income is primarily via unearned salaries and bonuses or dividends/capital gains from investments. Earned income is not a substantial part of their income. (Bringing in $500,000+/year ($250+/hour) can, in no manner, be justified as having been earned in my opinion.) And their requirements for living are such a small percentage of money available that costs aren’t even considered when making purchasing decisions.

     Thus, wealth is concentrated in group 3. Group 1 is being made larger and larger via mandated lower wages in comparison to living costs. Group 2 is getting smaller each year. And group 3 stays about the same size.

     How is the ability to gather wealth determined? The first factor is salaries. It is fantasized that salaries are market determined. In other words, they are paid what they are “worth”. This isn’t really the case. There is a lot of “lip service” about this but teachers still start off with very low pay (because of unions, they may leave their careers, upon retirement, with a decent income level). The low end is determined by legislation and not the market. The higher income levels for “blue collar” workers is dependent on education, certifications, and experience — often with a union interceding with management. The gradation of what experience and what education is “worth” is a crystal ball type of situation.

     In some instances, “appropriate” wages and benefits are determined by comparisons to how much money in sales per employee is achieved For example, if the company figures that an employee, in a specific job position or category, brings $300,000 into the company, then allocating $200,000 for salary and benefits is “reasonable” for the company. But this works only as long as the need exceeds the number of qualified employees (“market driven” — paid what they are “worth”).

     In the US, about 21% of all millionaires had inherited money as part of their foundational wealth. About 60% of all billionaires started with inherited money. The other 79% of millionaires built up their worth by saving, and investing (sometimes starting successful companies), for many years.

     How could we spread more fairly and equally? First, the starting point needs to be set at a living salary (meets some predetermined minimum “standard of living”), with automatic increases based on cost-of-living. Next, salaries need to be more transparent so that, eventually, comparative salaries will seem more in keeping with our official beliefs in freedom and equality. Last, the non-material (cash, stocks, bonds, and so forth) transfer of inherited wealth (transfer of properties, intellectual properties, or unrealized collections need to have special acknowledgement and allowances in order to preserve family farmers, children of artists, and so forth) must have much higher taxes. “Progressive” taxes need to come back into fashion — with a severe closing of loopholes. (Social Security and Medicare taxes should have no “cap” on wages — everyone should contribute and, later, get their investments back.)

     Changing the status quo is dependent on the wills of those who presently benefit from the existing status quo. Women being able to vote depended on the males who already had such rights. Blacks got the ability to vote via the ballots of approved voting people. The voting age changes arose out of protests during draft registration and a reflection of rights associated with responsibilities.

     It is very difficult to change any system from the status quo. But it needs to happen to have a society that cares for, and honors, each of us for the spirit which resides within.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Criminality: Just a Law Away

     Everyone knows what a criminal is, don’t they? They’re the ones that rob or break things or get into fights. All of those things can happen, and they may be a criminal because of those actions — but it’s really not the root of the situation.

    A criminal is someone who has broken a law.

    The law might be a good law. The law might be a bad law. It might be an old law … or a brand new law. It may be a law that is only occasionally, and haphazardly, enforced. In each case, it is still a law, and breaking it makes you a criminal. For example, in the following weird laws, if you

• Put salt on a railroad track (Alabama)

• Refuse to give a person a glass of water (Arizona) [in Florida, it is illegal TO give people food or water]

• Fish from a camel’s back (Idaho)

• Take a bath between the months of October and March (Indiana)

• Don’t shower at least once a year (Kentucky)

• Keep an armadillo as a pet (Maine)

• Serenade your girlfriend (Michigan)

• Ride a camel on the highway (Nevada)

• Wear roller skates in a bathroom (Oregon)

• Wash a mule on the sidewalk (Virginia)

then you have broken the law (and, sometimes, with potentially very serious penalties).

     These don’t sound so serious, do they. And it is true that they are rarely enforced. But, these laws were written — and written for a purpose. The purpose may have been against the actions of one person. That is scary. Someone in authority can make you a criminal by enacting a law forbidding you to do something that you normally do. They don’t even have to inform you of the enacting of the law (“ignorance of the law is no excuse”).

     We don’t lose much sleep over weird laws and most people are happy about the “good” laws. It doesn’t make much difference as to whether it is an old law or a new law as long as it is a “good” law. Alas, laws aren’t always good.

     The use of laws to make people criminals is widespread throughout the world and there are a number of such laws in the U.S.’s relatively recent history.

     One very, very serious instance of laws written deliberately to allow the creation of a group of criminals derives from the wording of the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

     This Amendment is very important. It made it illegal to have slaves in the United States. In terms of this newsletter, however, it is the “escape clause” that is of great concern. “except as a punishment for crime”. Slavery and/or involuntary servitude is legal if a person is convicted of a crime. And crimes are described as breaking laws. (Fortunately, the full evils of U.S. slavery do not apply — the children do not become slaves.)

     In many areas of the South, “chain gangs” (almost always “minorities” (called such even where they are the majority of the population)) of people are assigned to do the same tasks as were done by slaves. They can even be hired out to individuals or businesses to do their menial work, as was done by slaves. (Unlike slavery, however, such does not extend to ownership of their children and family members.) All that is needed is to enact a law, or laws, that apply largely to the targeted group (and not enforce the law for others not in the targeted group) and the Thirteenth Amendment is legally nullified to a great extent.

     My father served in the US Navy, on an aircraft carrier, during the Korean War (or, officially, the Korean Conflict since no war has been declared by Congress since 1942). He mentioned to me the casual use of the completely legal substance, marijuana, as a normal part of ship life during that time. But, in the 1970s, it was no longer widely used. Therefore, J Edgar Hoover, who was passionately racist, decided that it was appropriate to encourage the use of marijuana within areas of targeted groups AND to persuade Congress and the President to make use of marijuana illegal. Thus, J Edgar Hoover could legally facilitate the subjection, and harassment, of his hated prey.

     In all areas of the world, we would like it to be true that laws are always enacted for the safety, and betterment, of people and society. But a law can be a potent weapon and recognition of that is important for people to be aware.

     A person may be changed from a non-criminal to a criminal by the enactment of a law. So, every law is of importance and it is the responsibility of every citizen to keep legislators carefully monitored.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Apathy: The Longest Addiction

     Once upon a time, in a galaxy very close to us all, I gave a Salutatorian speech for my high school (50th graduation anniversary this year). The topic was “Apathy”. The best that I can say about it was that I didn’t spot anyone sleeping during the speech. The worst that I can say is that I could give the exact same speech today, with the same reactions, and the same results.

     Between many moves and changes of technology (my speech was recorded on a cassette tape), I don’t seem to have the text of my speech anymore. But, as I said, I could give the same speech — or write the same speech — today without much change. The one addition I would make would be an advisory that apathy includes not taking the time or energy to research and factcheck the information with which you are presented. I don’t believe that the word factcheck existed in 1975.

     Apathy and procrastination are similar. Both are delays but procrastination is expected to have an end. Also, apathy is supposed to be based out of lack of interest, enthusiasm, or concern. Procrastination says that you kind-of want to do it but not now, after something, or when there are two moons in the sky.

     Recentering on apathy. Why would a person lack interest/enthusiasm/concern in something? It might not be important. It might not be important to them. The second is more likely since, if no one felt it was important, apathy would not even be considered to be applied as a description. Once again, apathy is likely to be used only if they “should” care. Everyone should care about climate change, right? Women should control their own bodies, right? Everyone’s life is important, right?

    Let’s proceed as if there is some issue about which people should care — some issue that affects them or those they care about. Why don’t they have any interest/enthusiasm/concern?

• It’s not their problem. Possibly not — at the moment — but many problems tend to grow over time. Social injustices, for example, have a tendency to keep expanding to include more and more subgroups of people. Pollution in one area tends to encourage corporations to feel it is okay to pollute anywhere and it may start affecting you. Air pollution will depend on the direction of the wind. If you recognize that it is A problem, then deciding that it is irrelevant to you is not a good excuse.
  

• Their efforts won’t make a difference. So, now you’re all-knowing (omniscient)? You never know. By being brave and confronting injustice, and supporting someone, you might be preventing a murder or a suicide. You just don’t know the effects of your own efforts. And the multiplier effect can change things considerably. Sociologists talk about how small percentages (sometimes as low as 3 or 4%) can become “contagious” and change the behavior of the larger group. You really, truly, never know if your personal effort will make a difference. And you can be pretty sure that your effort, in combination with others’ similar effort, CAN bring about change.
  

• They have other things in my life that are more important. This is hard to argue against. We all have many things we need to do that are important to ourselves, or those we care about. But, it may be a matter of just examining our priorities a bit closer. Will watching five more minutes of anime be more important, in your life, than placing a call to your legislator to ask them to do the right thing? (Legislators primarily pay attention to contributors but some also pay attention to the interests of those they are supposed to represent.) Will it change your ability to live out your day if you pick up a stray piece of litter as you are walking along the street — how much time did that really take?
  

• They have personal issues that manifest in decreased energy and activity levels. Depression, burnout, addictions, diseases, medications, and other items of life can make everything “else” seem not worth doing. Yes, you need to take care of yourself before you can attend to the needs of others. However, it is not a cliché to say that helping others can lead to helping yourself. Twelve-step programs often incorporate reaching outward to make your inward self more supportable. All I can truly say in this area is that you can only do what you can do. Blessed be.
  

• They are opposed to the item. You hate being around those who have challenges in their lives and would prefer them to just “go away” rather than try to do something for them. You hate that other state and are glad that their citizens are getting cancer from corporate pollution. That “other” group should be treated badly because they aren’t as valuable as others. In such situations, you aren’t actually expressing apathy — though it could appear that way to outside observers. This is an expression of a wounded soul and I can only pray that you heal from your ills.

     Apathy is looked at from the outside as a lack of action. The causes of apathy can be manifold but it is as true today as it was true 50 years ago that we could really “change the world” if we can treat this societal illness.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Recalibration: it is rarely a matter of comparing apples to apples

     My wife and I belong to a book club (she belongs to several, but we go to one together). A couple of books ago, we read the book “Happiness Falls” by Angie Kim. Not particularly giving a spoiler, the title is involved with something called a “happiness quotient”. The idea is that your recent past history will reset your scales.

     Say that I attended a pretty good happy film. As a 1 to 10 life experience (as opposed to a rating of the film itself), I rate it a 6 — pleasant and better than average. Now, envisage having just lost your job. You attend the same film but since you are likely feeling pretty rotten, watching that pretty good happy film might win a 8 for you as it was “just what you needed” at that time. Or your down feelings might negatively affect your appreciation of the film and you might get only a 4 for the experience of going to the film. In either case, you have altered your scale for evaluation.

     The range may also depend on the local environment. In a town where there are few restaurants and little competition, it is likely that a restaurant might get a 4/5. In a different area, with more restaurants and competition, it might get a 3/5. Same restaurant, same quality but looked at (and rated) differently according to the competitive environment.

     Let’s proceed towards the topic of “Happiness Falls” as mentioned above. If I have had a series of mishaps, or tragedies, occurring in my life, a well-prepared birthday party may seem like an 8/10 whereas if I just received the Nobel prize, I might consider it only a 6/10.

     I have a high pain threshold (which isn’t always to my advantage). I used to have my teeth filled without anesthesia. My current dentist doesn’t give me that option. But I know of some others who have to have general anesthetic before any dental work can be done. Our scales of 1 to 10 for pain are quite different.

     This is one of the many reasons why we cannot truly “walk in another’s footsteps”. Not that efforts to understand are not worthwhile — they are. But your feelings of pain, alienation, love, hate, and every other physical and emotional feeling are very unlikely to be at the same level as that of the other person. Your scales do not have the same endpoints.

     What evaluation scales do you have that seem to be out-of-sync with that of others?

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Amorality: For those who don't care whether something is "good" or "bad" -- only how it affects themselves

     I have boycotted a certain international company, famous for its chocolate and milk products, for over 50 years. Does that company care? Not at all. They have long ago adjusted their market prognosis to allow for those of us who boycott it. If my boycotting them makes no difference then why do I continue? Because the only reason I would be stopping is because of the inconvenience of continuing the boycott. My inconvenience versus an implicit acceptance of their behavior — that is not a sufficient reason to stop boycotting them. They also have purchased a certain baby food brand. IF I still had small children that might be a reason to stop my boycott. The nutrition of my child versus an implicit acceptance of behavior. A hard call and I’m glad I don’t have to make it.

     This company is not the only such company, of course. In the early 1970s, a well-known international automobile maker found themselves without a model to compete against the new small fuel-efficient cars. So, they rushed to complete a design. It turns out that, for other design considerations, they put the gasoline tank right at the back of the car. Cars were exploding when they were hit from behind. But, it took quite a few months before enough news (back when mainstream journalism was still a legitimate thing) reports triggered a backlash against the car manufacturer and they removed the model from the market.

     Even now, we have international companies which have vestiges of their prior journalism departments. But if they dare to report the reality of abusive governmental people and bodies, they retract and pay fines rather than face the possibility of abuse of power and retribution. The actions MAY be in the best interests of their stock holders (probably not as they are also potential customers) but definitely not in the best interests of their customers.

     What do these situations (and many others not described) have in common? Amorality.

     This is a subject about which I have written a number of newsletters (or blogs) in the past. But, in our world of diminishing trust in the world around us, it continues to be a very important subject. For some, there is no distinction between amorality and immorality and perhaps they are correct. Immorality is doing something that you know is considered bad according to your societal standards. Amorality is allowing something bad to happen (possibly without understanding that it is bad but not caring) but not directly doing the bad thing. There is a gray area which asks if knowing about the action makes a person an accomplice.

     In the above examples, the corporate decisions and actions are largely to do with money. If they could make the money without having the immoral actions occurring, that would be fine with them. But the money is more important. For the chocolate company, they add up the profits they make inappropriately selling their product. They balance that number against the cost of lawsuits for deaths, court costs, and restitution. So far, they make more money selling products and killing people. A similar situation existed for the automobile company. For the media company, none are killed directly but may be killed in related actions.

     Similar situations exist for personal actions. Bullying someone is immoral. Knowing about the bullying and not doing anything is amoral (see what I mean about the gray area between immoral and amoral). Polluting the environment is immoral. Noticing the pollution and not doing anything about it is amoral. Deliberately harming, or killing, someone is immoral (and usually illegal) but recognizing the event and not doing anything about it is amoral. There are some situations in which it seems that there is nothing an individual can do anything to prevent it. But, there really is no excuse.

     Amorality also exists when the company, or person, is unconcerned about GOOD effects of their actions. A company changes their waste flow to capture, and resell, some of the effluent which ends up with the company polluting less. Their action was to make more money via a better process and profitable side-effect but the end result was something good. People don’t complain about that (and I don’t either — I wish it would happen more often).

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Giving & Taking: One cannot exist without the other but there are nuances

      “It is better to give than to receive”. English, even more than many other languages, has shades of meaning according to the exact word used. The word “receive” is passive. Something arrives and you passively receive it. There is no action upon the receiver’s part except to act as a receptacle.

“I received a package in the mail”.

     In the first paragraph, “giving” is an active verb. You are deliberately choosing to remove something in your possession and place it into the possession of someone else or in some other place. You are using an active “give” and a passive “receive”. It is also possible to be an unwilling, passive, person/location that has something available to be used/possessed by someone else or another place. In this case, it is best to use the passive verb “possess”. Possessor A transfers X to possessor B.

“They took what they wanted”.

     “Don’t be a taker”. In this case, “take” is very active. You are removing something from someone, or some place, and taking possession of it. Whether it wants to be possessed by you is of no consequence. Only in the case of an active giver is everything voluntary.

     Confused yet? People get confused and they use the wrong terms all the time. We say that being a taker is bad and a giver is good. But it really depends on the other end of the transition.

• If both are passive, no transaction occurs.

• If one is active and the other passive then the transaction may be unwilling and, most of the time, the morality of a society says that an unwilling transaction is bad. (There are those, of course, that say “might makes right” — if you CAN take then it is all right for you to take. In general, people will SAY that forcing something upon (“giving to”) a person is not proper but may accept the act. If you CAN give but the other doesn’t want it then it indicates a certain amount of hubris.)

• If both are active, it is assumed that it is a willing transaction.

     The above is complicated enough, isn’t it? But we haven’t gone into the situation of an active end and an active refusal. I try to give you something (active) but you refuse to accept it (active refusal). I try to take something from you (active) and you refuse to let it go (active refusal). These situations are conflict cases — conflict of desire — and they are often the basis of wars, vendettas, grudges, and resentments.

     There are more exact replacements, or synonyms of the various verbs within a given situation.

     Taking from someone without their permission (active or passive resistance) is theft.

     Giving to someone without their desire to have it can be called charity or it can be called hubris.

     Adages must be applied carefully. Sometimes it is NOT better to give than to receive.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Spectrums: Deciding upon a number along a long list of numbers does not define us.

     It is very rare that a person can use one particular set of pigeonholes to categorize a person — probably isn’t possible at all. But most measuring devices will come up with “answers”. Looking at those answers more closely, we find that the answers all end up “kind of”.

     I have a result for the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory of INT/FJ. The “/” indicates that I “balance” between the aspects of “Thinking” and “Feeling”. The reality is that the T to F scale is a spectrum. I test out at the very middle. It is my understanding that there is now a refinement that breaks the type-casting into smaller gradations. It also seems to be true that we shift based on relationships. My wife is strong on the Process-oriented side of the MBTI while I am moderate on the Judicious side. When I am with her, my "J” aspect becomes stronger as I counter-balance her “P” tendencies.

     There are many areas that can be measured — with an arbitrary division that says one endpoint or the other (for weight; overweight versus underweight). Some are known to have large “loopholes” but are used anyway for convenience. One such is BMI. For most people (about 90%), this ratio of height to weight works — but for those who have either a lot of muscle mass (such as athletes or other heavy exercisers) or truly “large boned” it does not work well. The measurement of height seems straight-forward but we are all shorter at the end of the day (the older, the greater the difference) and whether we are “short” or “tall” depends within what pool of people we are measured. When I was visiting castles in Wales, I (at 5’ 7” tall) had to duck under every door arch and watch my head within rooms. The suits of armor appeared to be made for junior high school children.

     One of the areas that end up being categorized the most is “race”. Most people would think that this would be definitive but it is actually composed of many gradations and very arbitrary divisions. The concept of race was created to give apparently rational excuses for distinguishing between different pools of people. Thus, one pool could be considered “superior” to others and justified colonialism and slavery. But, if you break down the qualities that are measured, we can quickly see that such classification is balderdash.

     At our sons’ elementary school, there were a variety of genetic backgrounds. I believe there were about 800 students. If, on a particular day (it would be different on another day because of tanning or season of the year), you lined all 800 students up from the most pigment to the least, you would probably have around 50 or so clumps where the pigment level would be difficult to discern between individuals. According to the “race” aspect, however, somewhere between two clumps, the children would be classified as “white” or “non-white”.

     The same set of methods could be applied to hair texture, nose proportions, eye color, cuticle shapes, and so forth. With each spread and grouping, the concept of “race” becomes more and more ludicrous.

     This is not meant to negate personal histories, ethnic commonalities, and other aspects which can tend to group people and may coincide with the categories of “race”. Such identification may be very important to a person, their history, and their perspectives on the rest of the world — but the outside envelope is incidental.

     We have four sons, two of which are on the Autistic spectrum. Before a change in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), they were considered to have Asperger’s Syndrome. Autism is not a disease but it is a change in brain structure that creates challenges for people to deal with inside a “neurotypical” (or “normal”) population. The changes happen before birth and, therefore, nothing that happens after birth has any relevance.

     From a “techie” point of view, you can say that their I/O (Input/Output) connections to the world are wired differently. With this difference in “wiring”, interactions with the outside world do not work the same as others. Hearing, speaking, touching, tasting, seeing, smelling and other bodily interactions with the general population can sometimes be like speaking different languages.

     But our two sons are considered “high functioning”. They have strong verbal skills and are able to do most things that others do. But they do them differently — and one of them includes an aspect of “sensory issues” where the volume of the outside world can vary, in his perception, from moment to moment. As a child, this caused him great distress so he would scream to drown out the outside world with something “he could control”. It continues to affect him about what foods he can tolerate.

     The grandson of a friend is towards the other “end” of the spectrum. His “I/O circuitry” does not allow verbal output. He is not fully at the “end” (where there is NO interaction with the outside world) as he is still able to interact with others and can be an enormous pleasure to be around. It is impossible for those around him to know just what/how/how much/why he processes information.

     Our society has a terrible habit of assuming that those with sensory challenges also have intellectual challenges but such aspects are quite independent. From all points within the autistic spectrum, the goal is have them be able to interact well with others who do not have their particular configurations.

     Another famous spectrum issue is that of the Intelligence Quotient (IQ). It has been proposed that IQ is only one of a number of different types of intelligence with all of them having their own “score” or place upon the spectrum. Often a “100” means “average”. Half of the population is meant to be below 100 and the other half above 100. But there are also scales (or spectrums) for emotional intelligence (EQ) and physical intelligence (PQ) and a couple of others. Alas, there is no such thing as a “common sense” quotient — because that term is primarily used as a comparison between those setting the ideal and those either following along or diverting from that ideal.

     Score, scale, spectrum — we are all of more this way than that and the combination of all such comparisons, or evaluations. The array of results, as expressed in lists of numbers, emphasize how unique we each are rather than allowing a single number to pigeonhole us.

     We are one species, one people and our differences all form a part of the population as a whole.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Displacement: Physical and Economic

     Life is change. It can be slow, fast, or abrupt — but it happens. Our planet has gone through changes throughout its history. Asteroids have hit the planet. Volcanoes have caused short-lived, but deadly, global winters for the planet. We have had Ice Ages and receding periods. Continents have split apart and merged.

     We are currently in a global warming period emerging faster than has happened in any other recorded period. This is based on comparisons with historical geologic and ice core readings. It is due to increases of greenhouse gases which prevent heat from escaping the earth’s atmosphere and which causes a change in the balance of energy. The oceans are warming and that gives a greater heat/energy source for creation of larger, more frequent, drastic weather events such as droughts, floods, storms, hurricanes and — yes — even blizzards. Almost all scientists agree that humans have greatly contributed to those greenhouse gases. It is not as certain as to whether it still would have happened without humans — but, if so, not nearly as quickly.

     But it IS happening and it’s happening quickly. The changes in weather patterns are forcing changes in crops grown in different areas. The rise in sea level threatens coastlines and many island nations, with much of their area to be below estimated future sea levels, are making plans for migration (or emigration) of much of their population. Larger, non-island, countries will have to deal with coastlines receding inland with established coastal development going under the water. Other large-scale displacements of people will happen because of changes in availability in amounts of potable water. More energy in the system can power many different events and 100-year-floods become 5-year-floods.

     People are not displaced solely because of physical reasons. The tides of change in the economic arena can move people even more than an earthquake.

     The name “Luddite” (named for Ned Ludd who destroyed some mechanical equipment in 1779 out of frustration with changes happening) can be found in literature around 1811. In this region of time, the “Industrial Revolution” was taking place. What once needed ten people to do the manual labor for a task could, with machines, be done with one person (trained differently and with a different set of daily duties). What happened to the other nine? They were unemployed — and, since there were a lot of instances of this happening in the textile industry, there were a LOT of unemployed people without any type of modern “safety net”. They had been displaced by the new technology and machinery.

     Many of the newly unemployed workers had done the same type of work all of their lives. The companies that they previously worked for had no legal obligation for generosity and compassion to help the unemployed workers — nor did the religious leaders of the time urge such!

     Over the years, technology has replaced technology. As Danny DeVito says in “Other People’s Money” (not the exact words) — “I’ll bet that the last company that made buggy whips made the absolutely most wonderful buggy whips ever”. But the buggy and coach have traveled over the hills unlikely to return.

     Over the past 50 years, we have had white-collar labor practices be replaced by programs and computers — and blue-collar positions replaced by automation. It has caused discomfort and displacement but manageable. Now, the process continues to accelerate. Though we have yet to see just how effective, and useful, current AI methods are within society, if they come even close to the use as hoped for by businesses, we could displace 10% to 20% of the labor force. These are not people who have yet to find a job. These are people for whom no job exists. What happens with them? Desperate people do desperate things. A universal base income might keep them alive but there are so many other societal aspects that blend into that and other possibilities.

     While this is something that I have said, and will say, on a disgustingly regular basis; we have problems to approach and work towards solving — but the first overriding problem is getting people to talk to, and work with, each other to work to solve them.

     But we can do it if we want to do such.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Strata: Layers don't apply only to geology

 “If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.”

― Lyndon B. Johnson

     Geologists and physical archeologists can look at a cliffside and determine weather patterns, and events of the earth, that tell us some about the history of the earth — including volcanic events, earthquakes, global plates colliding, and so forth. In the case of geology, it is a matter of one new layer being settled upon an older, former, one. The layers are not all active at the same time — unlike layers of human society.

     There have probably been pockets of egalitarianism throughout history and society. The book “Utopia” by Thomas More gives some glimpses into an angelic society such as that; but utopia is an idealized societal structure that can only be approached as a possible goal; a goal that is hardly ever reached — and never maintained.

     General society has hierarchies which can be formalized or implied. In Russian feudal society, the layers were fixed: Royalty, Nobility, Peasants, and Serfs. There was almost no mobility between layers and there were less structured sublayers within each layer. The bottom layer was pretty universal within all feudal societies — the Serfs were property and anyone above them in the hierarchy could do anything to them that they wanted. The top layer was also pretty universal. Royalty owned everything but Nobles might be delegated to be directly responsible for some subset. Peasants (in other named hierarchies, sometimes known as Freemen (yes — gender on purpose)) were no longer considered to be property but terms of mutual obligation with the local royalty/nobility were dictated solely by the higher class.

     Feudal society was common throughout Europe from the 9th through the 15th centuries. It was structured somewhat differently in each region, but still had the ruling classes on top and the working classes (and human property) on the bottom.

     I don’t have enough knowledge about non-European systems to talk in depth about them — but most have in common the idea of a smaller group controlling a larger group that did the everyday work. The primary improvement over the feudal system past the 15th century was the concept of movement, and the creation of what many now call the “middle class”. Prior to these changes, if you were born a serf, you died a serf, and so did your children. Sure, there were tales (often totally made up) that talked about “diamonds in the rough” where a serf became the king — but there aren’t many (if any) recorded instances of this actually happening.

     With increased mobility, a person could move up (or, more rarely, down — if a royal, or noble, lost status they often lost their life) in the social strata. Advancing to the rung of royalty has been strongly opposed by others in the ruling class but in the 20th and 21st century such has happened.

     In almost every economic society, there are people in the bottom layer who do most of the physical work, almost all of the “unpleasant” physical work, and who have very little security in their lives. In India, the Dalits (“untouchables”) are at the bottom. In the U.S., it is minorities, recent immigrants (that did not come in under a H1-B Visa or other high tech Visa), and undocumented immigrants. In Australia, South Asian immigrants bring along their positions within their own caste system and the position of the aborigine is unclear. In much of modern Europe, there is a less strict boundary but those considered as “laborers” still make up the foundation, “lower”, class/layer.

     In the U.S., the layers do shift — as does the population mixture. “No Irish Need Apply”, “Italians go Home”, “Whites Only” (that last one still exists — just not so explicitly), Large influxes of outside groups as immigrants often evoke discomfort, insecurity, and discrimination. And, of course, slaves were the lowest sublayer within the foundation layer prior to official elimination of slavery — though blacks are still often part of the foundation layer.

     In diagrams of caste, or economic/social, systems the layers are often displayed as pyramids. This evolves naturally, as each layer “up” has fewer people and has more freedom of action and allowable actions. In the North American indigenous totem poles, it is the bottom layer that is the foundation of the story and the source of strength and support for the other layers — often representing spirit guardians or an animal protector for the group.

     It isn’t required that the bottom layer be populated by people. We are now entering a period of time when it is no longer a fantasy to have robots, or multi-functioning AI or automation, take over many of the tasks of the foundation layer. Doing such forces a shift of the people filling the existing foundation layers and makes intrusions into other layers. Presently, there are no societies properly preparing for such a disruption.

     The bottom layers of society are vital to local economic/societal functioning. Like the foundation of a house, they are more important to the structure than that which is built on top.

     Without them, the rest of the layers crumble.

     But the treatment of the people comprising the bottom layers is not predetermined. They can be treated horribly, as was most often the case with the enslaved population of the U.S., the situation of the Dalits in India, or the recent immigrant (legal or undocumented). They can also be recognized and respected. Alas, the spectrum of treatment more often leans toward poor treatment. But, since all layers serve a purpose, a more egalitarian treatment is warranted and quite possible to exist within a society.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Woke: The hijacking of a Word

     If I read (or hear) the word “woke” in an article, I immediately know (with a high degree of confidence) what the political, economic, and societal orientation of the person using the word is. Why? Because those that originally made use of the word have almost completely abandoned it. The word has been hijacked from the originators to be used in very different ways.

     The word “woke” has a very simple definition:

To be aware of historical events and attitudes and their continued influence within society.

     There are other variations of the definition but it seems pretty straight-forward, doesn’t it? Simple. Should not be particularly controversial. But, as used by those who still use it, it is.

     Do the people who use it as negative type of 4-letter word still use it with the original definition? I don’t know. It is possible — though, if true, it means that they strongly different in opinion (and deny the facts of primary source documentation) about how historians and sociologists view the past, and present, world.

     If they use it with a different meaning, I cannot say just what that meaning may be. As used within speeches, articles, social media posts, tweets, and political campaigns it has no single consistent definition. It is used as an all-encompassing flag word to stand for everything negative that they believe exists in the people for whom they are using the word.

     The word “woke” is not the only word that has been hijacked in such a manner. And this has greatly assisted the campaign to divide the country and prevent constructive discussion. There is a saying that is used to work out the foundational reasons for events — “follow the money”. In these expanding situations of forcing division where there should be none, the better slogan should be “follow the power”.

     Hijacking a word does not benefit anyone. It just makes constructive dialog harder.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Terrorism: At the bottom of a spiral of grief, frustration, and rage

     I am not an expert in terrorism and I hate it as much as anyone. But, I do have some qualifications in feeling anger, frustration, and grief.

     I firmly believe that no one wants to be a terrorist. There is no career counseling in an office where someone says — “oh yes, that sounds just right for me. I think it would be really great to be a terrorist.” And, on the other side, I doubt very much that a lot of groups, and people, whom most of the world calls a terrorist would, in turn, call themselves a terrorist.

     Terrorists are not born, they are created. We all know that life is not fair but do we all have a good idea of just what that means? My brother gets a piece of candy and my mother looks for another but there is no more so I don’t get one. Life is not fair. Anger level 1.

     I apply to a college and am qualified to attend but I am turned down because they have no more open places to fill or no more funding to offer. But someone else does get admitted. They are also qualified but they are put into the front of the qualified queue because one of their parents is an alumnus of the college. Or perhaps the other person is the first in their family to have qualified to enter college and the college places them farther towards the front of the qualified queue. Life is not fair. Anger level 3.

     I have been working for a company for 15 years. I know how to do the work in my sleep (though I do not sleep while working). A position opens up. I am extremely well qualified to fill the position but the company gives the position to someone with no experience but they have a piece of paper that says they know the most recent ways to do the tasks of the position. Life is not fair. Anger level 5.

     My family works hard together to make a life for all. There are no luxuries but everyone gets enough to eat, the clothes are clean and the family is even able to buy shoes (inexpensive or second-hand) when the children outgrow them. A bomb hits my house. My parents and one of my siblings are killed. Our home is obliterated. I have to go on the streets with my little sister and try to scrounge food and locate some shelter in abandoned buildings. I am sometimes beaten by others who are homeless but, more often, I am beaten by people who still have a safe, stable, home life. Perhaps because, deep down, they know that they could easily be in the same position as the homeless boy? Life is not fair. Anger level 6.

     But, as I walk around — avoiding the police who do not want me disturbing people — I see how others are dressed. I see people on television shows whose greatest concern is whether to fry a chicken or have fish for dinner. Life is not fair. Anger level 8.

     Many people who hit these situations give up — and spiral into despair and frustration. Some find it within themselves to struggle to examine what aspects of their situation are able to be changed and succeed in improving their situation. And some settle into non-constructive morasses of blame, bigotry, and complaining.

     But what if there is no way to improve the situation — the laws are against you and people like you? Unlike what happens with Job, there is no one who can restore your family (and, in the Bible, Job gets a new family — not the old one back). No one can restore your house and your neighborhood. It is possible that as soon as you and/or your neighbors rebuild, the new houses are bombed. Anger level 9.

     This becomes a combination of anger about the events and frustration in not being able to change the past, present, or future. There is yet additional anger if there is no one with some degree of power willing to listen. And if you are being used as an “expendable” side-effect of political and military maneuvering then anger and frustration mount.

     These combinations of great anger and huge frustration generate rage. And rage is not rational. It does not stand back and say “how do these actions cause an improvement in my condition or the condition of my neighbors and others in my same situation?” It explodes — sometimes (too often) literally.

     In addition, those who have entered into a state of rage are very susceptible to being used. People with greater power and charisma can easily channel people’s rage into destructive action for their own purposes.

     It is possible for the death-dance of rage and frustration to de-escalate. It happened in Northern Ireland. It was not easy. It can also be contagious. It is currently expanding within the Middle East and it is very difficult to know who deserves the title of terrorist. Possibly none of them believe that the word should be associated with them. Yet rage rules the situation.

     Terrorists are not born, they are created. It will take the concerted, compassionate, efforts of all of us to change those conditions within which they are created.

     Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.